consider human ideas about what wildlife is native to whatever region on the planet, humans expanding all over the planet, traveling all over it, you know there’s the presence of humans, the development, roads, buildings, agriculture, variously industry, population expansion, but there’s another aspect, another dimension, the imposition if you will of ideas about the world, and nothing other than humans does that

what’s normal of most life on earth is that it (most, possibly all other species) don’t have ideas that drive them to inhabit the entire earth

I guess it’s evidence of the success of the species, and who doesn’t get some comfort from the success of the species

how might an ecologically-minded citizen scientist see things, concerned with the balance of life on earth, how could shared ideas about the earth by a species expanding all over it really help with the balance of life, or is it a lie, a deception even, to fail to more localize human activities to particular regions

to what extent is environmentalism a license to expand all over the planet

I mean if by some genetic mutation a family of dumb skippies out the paddock got global ambitions like humans, along with ideas about the balance of life on earth, well i’d guess the creature wouldn’t be allowed to breed

>to what extent is environmentalism a license to expand all over the planet

?

Environmentalists are generally opposed to further encroachment on what’s left of wilderness.

Bubblecar said:

>to what extent is environmentalism a license to expand all over the planet

?

Environmentalists are generally opposed to further encroachment on what’s left of wilderness.

most people with environmental concerns will make a contribution to population growth, and global expansion

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

>to what extent is environmentalism a license to expand all over the planet

?

Environmentalists are generally opposed to further encroachment on what’s left of wilderness.

most people with environmental concerns will make a contribution to population growth, and global expansion

of the near future, the present and next crop if you like

transition said:

consider human ideas about what wildlife is native to whatever region on the planet, humans expanding all over the planet, traveling all over it, you know there’s the presence of humans, the development, roads, buildings, agriculture, variously industry, population expansion, but there’s another aspect, another dimension, the imposition if you will of ideas about the world, and nothing other than humans does that

what’s normal of most life on earth is that it (most, possibly all other species) don’t have ideas that drive them to inhabit the entire earth

I guess it’s evidence of the success of the species, and who doesn’t get some comfort from the success of the species

how might an ecologically-minded citizen scientist see things, concerned with the balance of life on earth, how could shared ideas about the earth by a species expanding all over it really help with the balance of life, or is it a lie, a deception even, to fail to more localize human activities to particular regions

to what extent is environmentalism a license to expand all over the planet

I mean if by some genetic mutation a family of dumb skippies out the paddock got global ambitions like humans, along with ideas about the balance of life on earth, well i’d guess the creature wouldn’t be allowed to breed

You obviously don’t think that our adaptability and interest in expanding into every available environment will be our ultimate downfall?

transition said:

consider human ideas about what wildlife is native to whatever region on the planet, humans expanding all over the planet, traveling all over it, you know there’s the presence of humans, the development, roads, buildings, agriculture, variously industry, population expansion, but there’s another aspect, another dimension, the imposition if you will of ideas about the world, and nothing other than humans does that

what’s normal of most life on earth is that it (most, possibly all other species) don’t have ideas that drive them to inhabit the entire earth

I guess it’s evidence of the success of the species, and who doesn’t get some comfort from the success of the species

how might an ecologically-minded citizen scientist see things, concerned with the balance of life on earth, how could shared ideas about the earth by a species expanding all over it really help with the balance of life, or is it a lie, a deception even, to fail to more localize human activities to particular regions

to what extent is environmentalism a license to expand all over the planet

I mean if by some genetic mutation a family of dumb skippies out the paddock got global ambitions like humans, along with ideas about the balance of life on earth, well i’d guess the creature wouldn’t be allowed to breed

I’m going to tell you right now that if skippy had trains and boats and planes he would take over the world. He might be a strong swimmer but there’s no way he can get there without a boat or plane.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

>to what extent is environmentalism a license to expand all over the planet

?

Environmentalists are generally opposed to further encroachment on what’s left of wilderness.

most people with environmental concerns will make a contribution to population growth, and global expansion

Most people with environmental concerns actually go about limiting their effect upon the world. By having no more than two children and usually less and going without stuff like chewing on the dead flesh of their victims.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

>to what extent is environmentalism a license to expand all over the planet

?

Environmentalists are generally opposed to further encroachment on what’s left of wilderness.

most people with environmental concerns will make a contribution to population growth, and global expansion

Most people with environmental concerns actually go about limiting their effect upon the world. By having no more than two children and usually less and going without stuff like chewing on the dead flesh of their victims.

does it make any difference, say environmental awareness, love of the balance of life on earth, a person could have no children, abstain from breeding, lots of people could do that, even commit to voluntary extinction, the big project would remain the same, the theme would be very similar, it would still help the human species proliferate and spread out all over the planet with their good work

the problem is evident today, each country (even the most growth restrained) inevitably ends up competing with countries with a higher population growth

so i’m suggesting there’s an intrinsic problem with the global objective, a problem with the failure to more restrain human activity to geographic areas

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

most people with environmental concerns will make a contribution to population growth, and global expansion

Most people with environmental concerns actually go about limiting their effect upon the world. By having no more than two children and usually less and going without stuff like chewing on the dead flesh of their victims.

does it make any difference, say environmental awareness, love of the balance of life on earth, a person could have no children, abstain from breeding, lots of people could do that, even commit to voluntary extinction, the big project would remain the same, the theme would be very similar, it would still help the human species proliferate and spread out all over the planet with their good work

the problem is evident today, each country (even the most growth restrained) inevitably ends up competing with countries with a higher population growth

so i’m suggesting there’s an intrinsic problem with the global objective, a problem with the failure to more restrain human activity to geographic areas

Hmm, yeah.

We Agree.

Answers never clear again
This turning of the page
This turn look away

There I took a left turning
Before I came of age
I agreed to let it out
I agreed to let it go
I agreed to turn around
I agreed to turn my face away

Danger is the most important
Fear you’ll ever know
The transporting of refugees
The silent night is cold

And all the time
We looked around
As we were never told

But we agreed to let it out
We agreed to let it go
We agreed to turn our backs
We agreed to turn our face away, away

Thousands to the million
Sisters, grandmothers and more
It’s not the feast we throw away
It’s the way we close the door
Their silence deafens every sound
We try just to ignore
To waste their future freedom
We’ll regret forever more

I believe in
I believe in
These are the days that we will talk about
I believe in
I believe in
One understanding what is real

If we are one
Then we are refugees
We are the prisoners of our own design
If we are one
Seen through the eyes of a child
We will perpetuate this song of love
If we are one
Seen through the eyes of a child
We will perpetuate this song of love
If we are one
Seen through the eyes of a child
We will perpetuate this song
Perpetuate this song of love
Now we build the bridges
That we walk upon together
At the last count many lonely souls
The sadness always kills

Each breaking point is waiting
For the promise to fulfill

When we agree to turn the page
When we agree to help them free
When we agree to let it out
When we agree to let it shine
When we agree to let it run
When we agree to let it change our lives

I believe in, our lives
I believe in, our lives
These are the days we will talk about

When we are one
Seen through the eyes of child
We will perpetuate this song of love

When we are one
Seen through the eyes of child
We will perpetuate this song of love
Song of love

humans are explorers apparently, which seen another way could be viewed as lacking geographic restraint, from that you could question humans desire to populate the atmosphere with satellites, and further the ambition to populate other planets with their own kind, I mean in a way overpopulation (at home, on earth) becomes subordinate (a lesser aspect, or objective) in the larger exploration field, conveniently

so i’d reckon it would be refreshing if someone just out and said it, stated it as it is, that humans, human civilization is highly expansionist, even fiercely expansionist, dressed up as exploration, technological progress, and other very respectable ideas

i’m suggesting environmentalism is one of those respectable ideas, part of the toolkit of dominance by the species

> what’s normal of most life on earth is that it (most, possibly all other species) don’t have ideas that drive them to inhabit the entire earth

That’s a very good point. Very profound.

Most life on Earth does limit itself to a specific geographical region, even though in some cases there’s no obvious reason why. Cane toads have been moving out of NSW for instance, and may even end up respecting the NSW-Qld border.

Wollomai pine has restricted itself to a very small area in Australia even though it grows well as far away as Melbourne.

Penguins and polar bears can live quite happily in zoos well away from their self-imposed native range.

The orange-bellied parrot doesn’t have to cross the Bass straight every year.

There are millions of other examples where organisms self-limit their geographical range. It’s quite difficult to find any wild organism that doesn’t limit its geographical range. Even sparrows and pigeons do.

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

most people with environmental concerns will make a contribution to population growth, and global expansion

Most people with environmental concerns actually go about limiting their effect upon the world. By having no more than two children and usually less and going without stuff like chewing on the dead flesh of their victims.

does it make any difference, say environmental awareness, love of the balance of life on earth, a person could have no children, abstain from breeding, lots of people could do that, even commit to voluntary extinction, the big project would remain the same, the theme would be very similar, it would still help the human species proliferate and spread out all over the planet with their good work

the problem is evident today, each country (even the most growth restrained) inevitably ends up competing with countries with a higher population growth

so i’m suggesting there’s an intrinsic problem with the global objective, a problem with the failure to more restrain human activity to geographic areas

Population growth where the existing environment cannot support all, being forced out and just getting something for nothing, namely land.

transition said:

humans are explorers apparently, which seen another way could be viewed as lacking geographic restraint, from that you could question humans desire to populate the atmosphere with satellites, and further the ambition to populate other planets with their own kind, I mean in a way overpopulation (at home, on earth) becomes subordinate (a lesser aspect, or objective) in the larger exploration field, conveniently

so i’d reckon it would be refreshing if someone just out and said it, stated it as it is, that humans, human civilization is highly expansionist, even fiercely expansionist, dressed up as exploration, technological progress, and other very respectable ideas

i’m suggesting environmentalism is one of those respectable ideas, part of the toolkit of dominance by the species

The only reason humans do it is because they can. They produce tools, they make cloths, they make stuff to get them over physical barriers. Humans are just highly adaptable being able to survive in most habitats, not because they evolved to suit, but did so by modifying their environment.

mollwollfumble said:

> what’s normal of most life on earth is that it (most, possibly all other species) don’t have ideas that drive them to inhabit the entire earth

That’s a very good point. Very profound.

Most life on Earth does limit itself to a specific geographical region, even though in some cases there’s no obvious reason why. Cane toads have been moving out of NSW for instance, and may even end up respecting the NSW-Qld border.

Wollomai pine has restricted itself to a very small area in Australia even though it grows well as far away as Melbourne.

Penguins and polar bears can live quite happily in zoos well away from their self-imposed native range.

The orange-bellied parrot doesn’t have to cross the Bass straight every year.

There are millions of other examples where organisms self-limit their geographical range. It’s quite difficult to find any wild organism that doesn’t limit its geographical range. Even sparrows and pigeons do.

Most animals live not necessarily in a geographic region, but a habitat type of which they have evolved to exploit. There is no point in moving to an environment where it will be more difficult to survive. Cane Toads just move to reach other suitable habitat that fortunately for them is reasonably common.

Being able to survive in zoos where they are housed and fed, it very different than living in the wild and surviving on what you can catch and/or find.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

humans are explorers apparently, which seen another way could be viewed as lacking geographic restraint, from that you could question humans desire to populate the atmosphere with satellites, and further the ambition to populate other planets with their own kind, I mean in a way overpopulation (at home, on earth) becomes subordinate (a lesser aspect, or objective) in the larger exploration field, conveniently

so i’d reckon it would be refreshing if someone just out and said it, stated it as it is, that humans, human civilization is highly expansionist, even fiercely expansionist, dressed up as exploration, technological progress, and other very respectable ideas

i’m suggesting environmentalism is one of those respectable ideas, part of the toolkit of dominance by the species

The only reason humans do it is because they can. They produce tools, they make cloths, they make stuff to get them over physical barriers. Humans are just highly adaptable being able to survive in most habitats, not because they evolved to suit, but did so by modifying their environment.

yeah, anyway i’m wondering if environmentalism is substantially part of a distorting fantasy about the carbon cycle, humans may reduce the fossil fuels they burn, but seem to be offsetting that with an increased churn of humans, the death rate per time

I mean environmentalism may lend to ideas about the joy of life (diversity of etc), and distract from how much it all functions on death

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

humans are explorers apparently, which seen another way could be viewed as lacking geographic restraint, from that you could question humans desire to populate the atmosphere with satellites, and further the ambition to populate other planets with their own kind, I mean in a way overpopulation (at home, on earth) becomes subordinate (a lesser aspect, or objective) in the larger exploration field, conveniently

so i’d reckon it would be refreshing if someone just out and said it, stated it as it is, that humans, human civilization is highly expansionist, even fiercely expansionist, dressed up as exploration, technological progress, and other very respectable ideas

i’m suggesting environmentalism is one of those respectable ideas, part of the toolkit of dominance by the species

The only reason humans do it is because they can. They produce tools, they make cloths, they make stuff to get them over physical barriers. Humans are just highly adaptable being able to survive in most habitats, not because they evolved to suit, but did so by modifying their environment.

yeah, anyway i’m wondering if environmentalism is substantially part of a distorting fantasy about the carbon cycle, humans may reduce the fossil fuels they burn, but seem to be offsetting that with an increased churn of humans, the death rate per time

I mean environmentalism may lend to ideas about the joy of life (diversity of etc), and distract from how much it all functions on death

Life is about survival in all its forms. Death is the consequence if you don’t.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

The only reason humans do it is because they can. They produce tools, they make cloths, they make stuff to get them over physical barriers. Humans are just highly adaptable being able to survive in most habitats, not because they evolved to suit, but did so by modifying their environment.

yeah, anyway i’m wondering if environmentalism is substantially part of a distorting fantasy about the carbon cycle, humans may reduce the fossil fuels they burn, but seem to be offsetting that with an increased churn of humans, the death rate per time

I mean environmentalism may lend to ideas about the joy of life (diversity of etc), and distract from how much it all functions on death

Life is about survival in all its forms. Death is the consequence if you don’t.

they seem to be sort of occurring in equal amounts, so i’m not sure, not sure if life can be defined as being about survival

I could ask survival for how long?

anyway, later I may divine more of the environmentalist fantasies about the carbon cycle

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

yeah, anyway i’m wondering if environmentalism is substantially part of a distorting fantasy about the carbon cycle, humans may reduce the fossil fuels they burn, but seem to be offsetting that with an increased churn of humans, the death rate per time

I mean environmentalism may lend to ideas about the joy of life (diversity of etc), and distract from how much it all functions on death

Life is about survival in all its forms. Death is the consequence if you don’t.

they seem to be sort of occurring in equal amounts, so i’m not sure, not sure if life can be defined as being about survival

I could ask survival for how long?

anyway, later I may divine more of the environmentalist fantasies about the carbon cycle

Life is survival in a compatible environment and the adapted you are, will most likely bring you satisfaction and pleasure. If you are less compatible your survival rate is reduced.

Global Warming creates more problems regarding survival, it is a fact and has nothing to do with fantasy.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Life is about survival in all its forms. Death is the consequence if you don’t.

they seem to be sort of occurring in equal amounts, so i’m not sure, not sure if life can be defined as being about survival

I could ask survival for how long?

anyway, later I may divine more of the environmentalist fantasies about the carbon cycle

Life is survival in a compatible environment and the adapted you are, will most likely bring you satisfaction and pleasure. If you are less compatible your survival rate is reduced.

Global Warming creates more problems regarding survival, it is a fact and has nothing to do with fantasy.

doubtful viewing the carbon cycle from this position within it is likely to be an entirely impartial business

there is of course all the death and decomposition happening, whatever the life goes out of generally that event lends to becoming food, or energy somehow, for something living or that comes along later, makes good fertilizer too

i’d expect death is a big part of biological systems, it’s not the most cheerful aspect sure, that life and the living has another side, and appealing as it is to try to understand biological replicators as things engaged in persistence (which is not altogether wrong) that doesn’t appear to be the whole story, or perhaps an accurate representation

so i’d put to you the proposition that humans are pushing up the death rate per time of their own kind, by population growth, and that environmentalism will help humans push the population of their own kind up, it’ll become something like religion to that end

I don’t have objections to any of that above, to the extent it is the case, if at all, it’s more the license of thought exercise that I have put it that way

still there is the question of a hypothetical family of skippies, them evolving and developing global ambitions, proliferating and spreading all over the planet while preaching about the balance of life, if a human observed that they may wonder about the lack of geographic restraint

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

> what’s normal of most life on earth is that it (most, possibly all other species) don’t have ideas that drive them to inhabit the entire earth

That’s a very good point. Very profound.

Most life on Earth does limit itself to a specific geographical region, even though in some cases there’s no obvious reason why. Cane toads have been moving out of NSW for instance, and may even end up respecting the NSW-Qld border.

Wollomai pine has restricted itself to a very small area in Australia even though it grows well as far away as Melbourne.

Penguins and polar bears can live quite happily in zoos well away from their self-imposed native range.

The orange-bellied parrot doesn’t have to cross the Bass straight every year.

There are millions of other examples where organisms self-limit their geographical range. It’s quite difficult to find any wild organism that doesn’t limit its geographical range. Even sparrows and pigeons do.

Most animals live not necessarily in a geographic region, but a habitat type of which they have evolved to exploit. There is no point in moving to an environment where it will be more difficult to survive. Cane Toads just move to reach other suitable habitat that fortunately for them is reasonably common.

Being able to survive in zoos where they are housed and fed, it very different than living in the wild and surviving on what you can catch and/or find.

The cane toad is a feral. It didn’t evolve here. It has adapted like any alien does.
Wollemi pine was no longer able to spread its seed being lomoyed in the one space. Even if it had spread seed outside its space the environment had changed and the seed would not germinate.
Have you asked penguins and polar bears whether they are happy? Have you asked the zookeepers whether their charges transited easily or have settled in comfortably?
The Orange bellied parrot clearly does need to cross Bass Srait.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

> what’s normal of most life on earth is that it (most, possibly all other species) don’t have ideas that drive them to inhabit the entire earth

That’s a very good point. Very profound.

Most life on Earth does limit itself to a specific geographical region, even though in some cases there’s no obvious reason why. Cane toads have been moving out of NSW for instance, and may even end up respecting the NSW-Qld border.

Wollomai pine has restricted itself to a very small area in Australia even though it grows well as far away as Melbourne.

Penguins and polar bears can live quite happily in zoos well away from their self-imposed native range.

The orange-bellied parrot doesn’t have to cross the Bass straight every year.

There are millions of other examples where organisms self-limit their geographical range. It’s quite difficult to find any wild organism that doesn’t limit its geographical range. Even sparrows and pigeons do.

Most animals live not necessarily in a geographic region, but a habitat type of which they have evolved to exploit. There is no point in moving to an environment where it will be more difficult to survive. Cane Toads just move to reach other suitable habitat that fortunately for them is reasonably common.

Being able to survive in zoos where they are housed and fed, it very different than living in the wild and surviving on what you can catch and/or find.

The cane toad is a feral. It didn’t evolve here. It has adapted like any alien does.
Wollemi pine was no longer able to spread its seed being limited in the one space. Even if it had spread seed outside its space the environment had changed and the seed would not germinate.
Have you asked penguins and polar bears whether they are happy? Have you asked the zookeepers whether their charges transited easily or have settled in comfortably?
The Orange bellied parrot clearly does need to cross Bass Srait.

…

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

yeah, anyway i’m wondering if environmentalism is substantially part of a distorting fantasy about the carbon cycle, humans may reduce the fossil fuels they burn, but seem to be offsetting that with an increased churn of humans, the death rate per time

I mean environmentalism may lend to ideas about the joy of life (diversity of etc), and distract from how much it all functions on death

Life is about survival in all its forms. Death is the consequence if you don’t.

they seem to be sort of occurring in equal amounts, so i’m not sure, not sure if life can be defined as being about survival

I could ask survival for how long?

anyway, later I may divine more of the environmentalist fantasies about the carbon cycle

Three score and ten?

Now what is this about environmentalist fantasies?

transition said:

consider human ideas about what wildlife is native to whatever region on the planet, humans expanding all over the planet, traveling all over it, you know there’s the presence of humans, the development, roads, buildings, agriculture, variously industry, population expansion, but there’s another aspect, another dimension, the imposition if you will of ideas about the world, and nothing other than humans does that

what’s normal of most life on earth is that it (most, possibly all other species) don’t have ideas that drive them to inhabit the entire earth

I guess it’s evidence of the success of the species, and who doesn’t get some comfort from the success of the species

how might an ecologically-minded citizen scientist see things, concerned with the balance of life on earth, how could shared ideas about the earth by a species expanding all over it really help with the balance of life, or is it a lie, a deception even, to fail to more localize human activities to particular regions

to what extent is environmentalism a license to expand all over the planet

I mean if by some genetic mutation a family of dumb skippies out the paddock got global ambitions like humans, along with ideas about the balance of life on earth, well i’d guess the creature wouldn’t be allowed to breed

hmm try that MISSING LINK again:

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

hmmm apparently somebody don’t want you lot seeing that link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement

For many years it seemed that overpopulation was the looming crisis of our age. Back in 1968, the Stanford biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich infamously predicted that millions would soon starve to death in their bestselling, doom-saying book The Population Bomb; since then, neo-Malthusian rumblings of imminent disaster have been a continual refrain in certain sections of the environmental movement – fears that were recently given voice on David Attenborough’s documentary Life on our Planet.

At the time the Ehrlichs were publishing their dark prophecies, the world was at its peak of population growth, which at that point was increasing at a rate of 2.1% a year. Since then, the global population has ballooned from 3.5 billion to 7.67 billion.

But growth has slowed – and considerably. As women’s empowerment advances, and access to contraception improves, birthrates around the world are stuttering and stalling, and in many countries now there are fewer than 2.1 children per woman – the minimum level required to maintain a stable population.

Falling fertility rates have been a problem in the world’s wealthiest nations – notably in Japan and Germany – for some time. In South Korea last year, birthrates fell to 0.84 per woman, a record low despite extensive government efforts to promote childbearing. From next year, cash bonuses of 2m won (£1,320) will be paid to every couple expecting a child, on top of existing child benefit payments.

The fertility rate is also falling dramatically in England and Wales – from 1.9 children per woman in 2012 to just 1.65 in 2019. Provisional figures from the Office for National Statistics for 2020 suggest it could now be 1.6, which would be the lowest rate since before the second world war. The problem is even more severe in Scotland, where the rate has fallen from 1.67 in 2012 to 1.37 in 2019.

Wolves are among the animals making a comeback as human populations decrease. Photograph: Alamy

Increasingly this is also the case in middle-income countries too, including Thailand and Brazil. In Iran, a birthrate of 1.7 children per woman has alarmed the government; it recently announced that state clinics would no longer hand out contraceptives or offer vasectomies.

Thanks to this worldwide pattern of falling fertility levels, the UN now believes that we will see an end to population growth within decades – before the slide begins in earnest.

An influential study published in the Lancet last year predicted that the global population would come to a peak much earlier than expected – reaching 9.73 billion in 2064 – before dropping to 8.79 billion by 2100. Falling birthrates, noted the authors, were likely to have significant “economic, social, environmental, and geopolitical consequences” around the world.

Their model predicted that 23 countries would see their populations more than halve before the end of this century, including Spain, Italy and Ukraine. China, where a controversial one-child per couple policy – brought in to slow spiralling population growth – only ended in 2016, is now also expected to experience massive population declines in the coming years, by an estimated 48% by 2100.

It’s growing ever clearer that we are looking at a future very different from the one we had been expecting – and a crisis of a different kind, as ageing populations place shrinking economies under ever greater strain…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/as-birth-rates-fall-animals-prowl-in-our-abandoned-ghost-villages

Ian said:

…/cut by me transition/…

Thanks to this worldwide pattern of falling fertility levels, the UN now believes that we will see an end to population growth within decades – before the slide begins in earnest.

An influential study published in the Lancet last year predicted that the global population would come to a peak much earlier than expected – reaching 9.73 billion in 2064 – before dropping to 8.79 billion by 2100. Falling birthrates, noted the authors, were likely to have significant “economic, social, environmental, and geopolitical consequences” around the world.

…/cut by me transition/…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/as-birth-rates-fall-animals-prowl-in-our-abandoned-ghost-villages

that’s a projected decline in population of .94 billion in the 36 year period, an overpopulation correction it could be viewed as, a swing the other way

Ian said:

For many years it seemed that overpopulation was the looming crisis of our age. Back in 1968, the Stanford biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich infamously predicted that millions would soon starve to death in their bestselling, doom-saying book The Population Bomb; since then, neo-Malthusian rumblings of imminent disaster have been a continual refrain in certain sections of the environmental movement – fears that were recently given voice on David Attenborough’s documentary Life on our Planet.

At the time the Ehrlichs were publishing their dark prophecies, the world was at its peak of population growth, which at that point was increasing at a rate of 2.1% a year. Since then, the global population has ballooned from 3.5 billion to 7.67 billion.

But growth has slowed – and considerably. As women’s empowerment advances, and access to contraception improves, birthrates around the world are stuttering and stalling, and in many countries now there are fewer than 2.1 children per woman – the minimum level required to maintain a stable population.

Falling fertility rates have been a problem in the world’s wealthiest nations – notably in Japan and Germany – for some time. In South Korea last year, birthrates fell to 0.84 per woman, a record low despite extensive government efforts to promote childbearing. From next year, cash bonuses of 2m won (£1,320) will be paid to every couple expecting a child, on top of existing child benefit payments.

The fertility rate is also falling dramatically in England and Wales – from 1.9 children per woman in 2012 to just 1.65 in 2019. Provisional figures from the Office for National Statistics for 2020 suggest it could now be 1.6, which would be the lowest rate since before the second world war. The problem is even more severe in Scotland, where the rate has fallen from 1.67 in 2012 to 1.37 in 2019.

Wolves are among the animals making a comeback as human populations decrease. Photograph: Alamy

Increasingly this is also the case in middle-income countries too, including Thailand and Brazil. In Iran, a birthrate of 1.7 children per woman has alarmed the government; it recently announced that state clinics would no longer hand out contraceptives or offer vasectomies.

Thanks to this worldwide pattern of falling fertility levels, the UN now believes that we will see an end to population growth within decades – before the slide begins in earnest.

An influential study published in the Lancet last year predicted that the global population would come to a peak much earlier than expected – reaching 9.73 billion in 2064 – before dropping to 8.79 billion by 2100. Falling birthrates, noted the authors, were likely to have significant “economic, social, environmental, and geopolitical consequences” around the world.

Their model predicted that 23 countries would see their populations more than halve before the end of this century, including Spain, Italy and Ukraine. China, where a controversial one-child per couple policy – brought in to slow spiralling population growth – only ended in 2016, is now also expected to experience massive population declines in the coming years, by an estimated 48% by 2100.

It’s growing ever clearer that we are looking at a future very different from the one we had been expecting – and a crisis of a different kind, as ageing populations place shrinking economies under ever greater strain…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/as-birth-rates-fall-animals-prowl-in-our-abandoned-ghost-villages

Yes that birth rate has peaked and the predicted doom and gloom is now just used to wrap up fish and chips.
Everything peaks.

Peak Warming Man said:

Ian said:

For many years it seemed that overpopulation was the looming crisis of our age. Back in 1968, the Stanford biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich infamously predicted that millions would soon starve to death in their bestselling, doom-saying book The Population Bomb; since then, neo-Malthusian rumblings of imminent disaster have been a continual refrain in certain sections of the environmental movement – fears that were recently given voice on David Attenborough’s documentary Life on our Planet.

At the time the Ehrlichs were publishing their dark prophecies, the world was at its peak of population growth, which at that point was increasing at a rate of 2.1% a year. Since then, the global population has ballooned from 3.5 billion to 7.67 billion.

But growth has slowed – and considerably. As women’s empowerment advances, and access to contraception improves, birthrates around the world are stuttering and stalling, and in many countries now there are fewer than 2.1 children per woman – the minimum level required to maintain a stable population.

Falling fertility rates have been a problem in the world’s wealthiest nations – notably in Japan and Germany – for some time. In South Korea last year, birthrates fell to 0.84 per woman, a record low despite extensive government efforts to promote childbearing. From next year, cash bonuses of 2m won (£1,320) will be paid to every couple expecting a child, on top of existing child benefit payments.

The fertility rate is also falling dramatically in England and Wales – from 1.9 children per woman in 2012 to just 1.65 in 2019. Provisional figures from the Office for National Statistics for 2020 suggest it could now be 1.6, which would be the lowest rate since before the second world war. The problem is even more severe in Scotland, where the rate has fallen from 1.67 in 2012 to 1.37 in 2019.

Wolves are among the animals making a comeback as human populations decrease. Photograph: Alamy

Increasingly this is also the case in middle-income countries too, including Thailand and Brazil. In Iran, a birthrate of 1.7 children per woman has alarmed the government; it recently announced that state clinics would no longer hand out contraceptives or offer vasectomies.

Thanks to this worldwide pattern of falling fertility levels, the UN now believes that we will see an end to population growth within decades – before the slide begins in earnest.

An influential study published in the Lancet last year predicted that the global population would come to a peak much earlier than expected – reaching 9.73 billion in 2064 – before dropping to 8.79 billion by 2100. Falling birthrates, noted the authors, were likely to have significant “economic, social, environmental, and geopolitical consequences” around the world.

Their model predicted that 23 countries would see their populations more than halve before the end of this century, including Spain, Italy and Ukraine. China, where a controversial one-child per couple policy – brought in to slow spiralling population growth – only ended in 2016, is now also expected to experience massive population declines in the coming years, by an estimated 48% by 2100.

It’s growing ever clearer that we are looking at a future very different from the one we had been expecting – and a crisis of a different kind, as ageing populations place shrinking economies under ever greater strain…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/as-birth-rates-fall-animals-prowl-in-our-abandoned-ghost-villages

Yes that birth rate has peaked and the predicted doom and gloom is now just used to wrap up fish and chips.
Everything peaks.

World population is expected to be around 11 billion people within the next eighty years. We are currently a little over 7 billion. If that is not continued population growth. I would very much like to know what its Of the countries where indigenous populations are falling, most especially Australia, are bring in large numbers of people that exceeds any natural growth would ever be. The pressures being placed on natural systems are already in considerable trouble due the the increased demand of an expanding population from food, water, clothing and a place to live, and yes millions of people are currently starving.

People who are lucky to be born in a rich country might in their highly privileged and well provisioned home environment, often have little concern about environmental conditions in less wealthy countries and the impact our large population is having on other life forms and the planet itself with its ability to feed and support us all. I think you only need to investigate the environmental problems we are currently experiencing that without exception are being driven by demand from more people (overpopulation), especially those with their increased wealth making far greater demands on resources than anyone.

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Ian said:

For many years it seemed that overpopulation was the looming crisis of our age. Back in 1968, the Stanford biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich infamously predicted that millions would soon starve to death in their bestselling, doom-saying book The Population Bomb; since then, neo-Malthusian rumblings of imminent disaster have been a continual refrain in certain sections of the environmental movement – fears that were recently given voice on David Attenborough’s documentary Life on our Planet.

At the time the Ehrlichs were publishing their dark prophecies, the world was at its peak of population growth, which at that point was increasing at a rate of 2.1% a year. Since then, the global population has ballooned from 3.5 billion to 7.67 billion.

But growth has slowed – and considerably. As women’s empowerment advances, and access to contraception improves, birthrates around the world are stuttering and stalling, and in many countries now there are fewer than 2.1 children per woman – the minimum level required to maintain a stable population.

Falling fertility rates have been a problem in the world’s wealthiest nations – notably in Japan and Germany – for some time. In South Korea last year, birthrates fell to 0.84 per woman, a record low despite extensive government efforts to promote childbearing. From next year, cash bonuses of 2m won (£1,320) will be paid to every couple expecting a child, on top of existing child benefit payments.

The fertility rate is also falling dramatically in England and Wales – from 1.9 children per woman in 2012 to just 1.65 in 2019. Provisional figures from the Office for National Statistics for 2020 suggest it could now be 1.6, which would be the lowest rate since before the second world war. The problem is even more severe in Scotland, where the rate has fallen from 1.67 in 2012 to 1.37 in 2019.

Wolves are among the animals making a comeback as human populations decrease. Photograph: Alamy

Increasingly this is also the case in middle-income countries too, including Thailand and Brazil. In Iran, a birthrate of 1.7 children per woman has alarmed the government; it recently announced that state clinics would no longer hand out contraceptives or offer vasectomies.

Thanks to this worldwide pattern of falling fertility levels, the UN now believes that we will see an end to population growth within decades – before the slide begins in earnest.

An influential study published in the Lancet last year predicted that the global population would come to a peak much earlier than expected – reaching 9.73 billion in 2064 – before dropping to 8.79 billion by 2100. Falling birthrates, noted the authors, were likely to have significant “economic, social, environmental, and geopolitical consequences” around the world.

Their model predicted that 23 countries would see their populations more than halve before the end of this century, including Spain, Italy and Ukraine. China, where a controversial one-child per couple policy – brought in to slow spiralling population growth – only ended in 2016, is now also expected to experience massive population declines in the coming years, by an estimated 48% by 2100.

It’s growing ever clearer that we are looking at a future very different from the one we had been expecting – and a crisis of a different kind, as ageing populations place shrinking economies under ever greater strain…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/as-birth-rates-fall-animals-prowl-in-our-abandoned-ghost-villages

Yes that birth rate has peaked and the predicted doom and gloom is now just used to wrap up fish and chips.
Everything peaks.

World population is expected to be around 11 billion people within the next eighty years. We are currently a little over 7 billion. If that is not continued population growth. I would very much like to know what is. Of the countries where indigenous populations are falling, most especially Australia, are bring in large numbers of people that exceeds any natural growth would ever be. The pressures being placed on natural systems are already in considerable trouble due the the increased demand of an expanding population from food, water, clothing and a place to live, and yes millions of people are currently starving.

People who are lucky to be born in a rich country might in their highly privileged and well provisioned home environment, often have little concern about environmental conditions in less wealthy countries and the impact our large population is having on other life forms and the planet itself with its ability to feed and support us all. I think you only need to investigate the environmental problems we are currently experiencing that without exception are being driven by demand from more people (overpopulation), especially those with their increased wealth making far greater demands on resources than anyone.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Yes that birth rate has peaked and the predicted doom and gloom is now just used to wrap up fish and chips.
Everything peaks.

World population is expected to be around 11 billion people within the next eighty years. We are currently a little over 7 billion. If that is not continued population growth. I would very much like to know what is. Of the countries where indigenous populations are falling, most especially Australia, are bring in large numbers of people that exceeds any natural growth would ever be. The pressures being placed on natural systems are already in considerable trouble due the the increased demand of an expanding population from food, water, clothing and a place to live, and yes millions of people are currently starving.

People who are lucky to be born in a rich country might in their highly privileged and well provisioned home environment, often have little concern about environmental conditions in less wealthy countries and the impact our large population is having on other life forms and the planet itself with its ability to feed and support us all. I think you only need to investigate the environmental problems we are currently experiencing that without exception are being driven by demand from more people (overpopulation), especially those with their increased wealth making far greater demands on resources than anyone.

Regardless of population growth slowing down, it really hasn’t changed any of the projections made in the UN 1972 congress on the limits of growth.
We are at and are continuing to move in those directions projected. Nothing has changed other than some numbers.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

World population is expected to be around 11 billion people within the next eighty years. We are currently a little over 7 billion. If that is not continued population growth. I would very much like to know what is. Of the countries where indigenous populations are falling, most especially Australia, are bring in large numbers of people that exceeds any natural growth would ever be. The pressures being placed on natural systems are already in considerable trouble due the the increased demand of an expanding population from food, water, clothing and a place to live, and yes millions of people are currently starving.

People who are lucky to be born in a rich country might in their highly privileged and well provisioned home environment, often have little concern about environmental conditions in less wealthy countries and the impact our large population is having on other life forms and the planet itself with its ability to feed and support us all. I think you only need to investigate the environmental problems we are currently experiencing that without exception are being driven by demand from more people (overpopulation), especially those with their increased wealth making far greater demands on resources than anyone.

Regardless of population growth slowing down, it really hasn’t changed any of the projections made in the UN 1972 congress on the limits of growth.
We are at and are continuing to move in those directions projected. Nothing has changed other than some numbers.

Recall arguing with my brother about this way back then and he told me he was confident that we would smooth the way to the end. Indicating that we would never give up our comfort regardless.

Humans could have probably achieved most of what we have now without damaging the environment so much, lots of deliberate not caring and coverups.

Hive type insects, ants in particular may exist in almost as many different locations as humans, they are different species but still apart from permanently frozen places I wonder were ants don’t exist

Cymek said:

Humans could have probably achieved most of what we have now without damaging the environment so much, lots of deliberate not caring and coverups.

Just imagine, could there ever have been a mob of humans who could ever have survived all by themselves for many tens of millennia without even bothering to seek to contact others outside their space?
Imagine if such could have occurred, would it not have been because they had managed their environment as curators rather than rapacious consumers?

wait…

Cymek said:

Hive type insects, ants in particular may exist in almost as many different locations as humans, they are different species but still apart from permanently frozen places I wonder were ants don’t exist

GIYF.

Cymek said:

Humans could have probably achieved most of what we have now without damaging the environment so much, lots of deliberate not caring and coverups.

Impossible, more people need more of everything, from food to housing and everything else, it all needs natural resources and more land to supply it, then you have the recreational requirements of more people that encroach and exploit the natural environment. It is never ending, wealthy people what more, much more too.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Humans could have probably achieved most of what we have now without damaging the environment so much, lots of deliberate not caring and coverups.

Just imagine, could there ever have been a mob of humans who could ever have survived all by themselves for many tens of millennia without even bothering to seek to contact others outside their space?
Imagine if such could have occurred, would it not have been because they had managed their environment as curators rather than rapacious consumers?

wait…

I get your point, most tribal native population didn’t as far as we know wreck the environment.
What I mean is most pollution was just dumped out of sight out of mind when it didn’t have to be this way, lots of others things we do that can be done in far less damaging ways.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Humans could have probably achieved most of what we have now without damaging the environment so much, lots of deliberate not caring and coverups.

Just imagine, could there ever have been a mob of humans who could ever have survived all by themselves for many tens of millennia without even bothering to seek to contact others outside their space?
Imagine if such could have occurred, would it not have been because they had managed their environment as curators rather than rapacious consumers?

wait…

The Australian landscape was significantly altered by Aboriginals hunting and firestick practices when they first arrived.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Humans could have probably achieved most of what we have now without damaging the environment so much, lots of deliberate not caring and coverups.

Impossible, more people need more of everything, from food to housing and everything else, it all needs natural resources and more land to supply it, then you have the recreational requirements of more people that encroach and exploit the natural environment. It is never ending, wealthy people what more, much more too.

https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/posts/1686565/
https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/posts/1686554/
https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/posts/1686551/

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Humans could have probably achieved most of what we have now without damaging the environment so much, lots of deliberate not caring and coverups.

Just imagine, could there ever have been a mob of humans who could ever have survived all by themselves for many tens of millennia without even bothering to seek to contact others outside their space?
Imagine if such could have occurred, would it not have been because they had managed their environment as curators rather than rapacious consumers?

wait…

The Australian landscape was significantly altered by Aboriginals hunting and firestick practices when they first arrived.

Indeed it does appear thta way but you do also have to factor in that the climate was also changing irrevocably towards a drier continent from around about the tiime they arrived onwards. In other words don’t jump to conclusions without including all the factors.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Humans could have probably achieved most of what we have now without damaging the environment so much, lots of deliberate not caring and coverups.

Just imagine, could there ever have been a mob of humans who could ever have survived all by themselves for many tens of millennia without even bothering to seek to contact others outside their space?
Imagine if such could have occurred, would it not have been because they had managed their environment as curators rather than rapacious consumers?

wait…

The Australian landscape was significantly altered by Aboriginals hunting and firestick practices when they first arrived.

We had this discussion before and who knows that perhaps when they first got here they did hunt the megafauna (who can blame them probably easy food) to extinction, realised the damage they had done and collectively over time changed to caring not wrecking

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Just imagine, could there ever have been a mob of humans who could ever have survived all by themselves for many tens of millennia without even bothering to seek to contact others outside their space?
Imagine if such could have occurred, would it not have been because they had managed their environment as curators rather than rapacious consumers?

wait…

The Australian landscape was significantly altered by Aboriginals hunting and firestick practices when they first arrived.

Indeed it does appear thta way but you do also have to factor in that the climate was also changing irrevocably towards a drier continent from around about the tiime they arrived onwards. In other words don’t jump to conclusions without including all the factors.

True. It was a multitude of factors.

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Just imagine, could there ever have been a mob of humans who could ever have survived all by themselves for many tens of millennia without even bothering to seek to contact others outside their space?
Imagine if such could have occurred, would it not have been because they had managed their environment as curators rather than rapacious consumers?

wait…

The Australian landscape was significantly altered by Aboriginals hunting and firestick practices when they first arrived.

We had this discussion before and who knows that perhaps when they first got here they did hunt the megafauna (who can blame them probably easy food) to extinction, realised the damage they had done and collectively over time changed to caring not wrecking

Until the advent of settled agriculture most human societies developed a stable relationship with the natural environment.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Australian landscape was significantly altered by Aboriginals hunting and firestick practices when they first arrived.

We had this discussion before and who knows that perhaps when they first got here they did hunt the megafauna (who can blame them probably easy food) to extinction, realised the damage they had done and collectively over time changed to caring not wrecking

Until the advent of settled agriculture most human societies developed a stable relationship with the natural environment.

Which is in accord with the line from Jim Morrison, “What have they done to the earth?
What have they done to our fair sister?
Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn
And tied her with fences and dragged her down”:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXqPNlng6uI

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

We had this discussion before and who knows that perhaps when they first got here they did hunt the megafauna (who can blame them probably easy food) to extinction, realised the damage they had done and collectively over time changed to caring not wrecking

Until the advent of settled agriculture most human societies developed a stable relationship with the natural environment.

Which is in accord with the line from Jim Morrison, “What have they done to the earth?
What have they done to our fair sister?
Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn
And tied her with fences and dragged her down”:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXqPNlng6uI

Ride the snake.

Overpopulation is another important world changing environmental issue, as is Global Warming and in both cases large powerful vested interests are involved and don’t want to see it gain traction. The latter being the fossil fuel industry and the former, politicians whose success relies heavily on growth factors that a higher population will bring, plus big business who want to make more money by selling more to more people. It is an insane way to view our current circumstances and will coupled with global warming deliver serious outcomes directly affecting our survival and the assisting the sixth mass extinction.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Australian landscape was significantly altered by Aboriginals hunting and firestick practices when they first arrived.

We had this discussion before and who knows that perhaps when they first got here they did hunt the megafauna (who can blame them probably easy food) to extinction, realised the damage they had done and collectively over time changed to caring not wrecking

Until the advent of settled agriculture most human societies developed a stable relationship with the natural environment.

Not so sure about that, although the Australian Aborigines seemed to handle it very well, or was because Australia is a very large country with many geographical factors
naturally keeping people apart. With other countries the habitat areas are larger and more continuous that meant when the population grew and the land not large enough to support them, they simply moved over the next river, mountain, etc. to start a new hunter/gatherer community. However eventually all the unoccupied land would be taken up making further expansion impossible unless another means was found, which I think may have been agriculture.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

We had this discussion before and who knows that perhaps when they first got here they did hunt the megafauna (who can blame them probably easy food) to extinction, realised the damage they had done and collectively over time changed to caring not wrecking

Until the advent of settled agriculture most human societies developed a stable relationship with the natural environment.

Not so sure about that, although the Australian Aborigines seemed to handle it very well, or was because Australia is a very large country with many geographical factors
naturally keeping people apart. With other countries the habitat areas are larger and more continuous that meant when the population grew and the land not large enough to support them, they simply moved over the next river, mountain, etc. to start a new hunter/gatherer community. However eventually all the unoccupied land would be taken up making further expansion impossible unless another means was found, which I think may have been agriculture.

And war.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Until the advent of settled agriculture most human societies developed a stable relationship with the natural environment.

Not so sure about that, although the Australian Aborigines seemed to handle it very well, or was because Australia is a very large country with many geographical factors
naturally keeping people apart. With other countries the habitat areas are larger and more continuous that meant when the population grew and the land not large enough to support them, they simply moved over the next river, mountain, etc. to start a new hunter/gatherer community. However eventually all the unoccupied land would be taken up making further expansion impossible unless another means was found, which I think may have been agriculture.

And war.

Too true!

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Until the advent of settled agriculture most human societies developed a stable relationship with the natural environment.

Not so sure about that, although the Australian Aborigines seemed to handle it very well, or was because Australia is a very large country with many geographical factors
naturally keeping people apart. With other countries the habitat areas are larger and more continuous that meant when the population grew and the land not large enough to support them, they simply moved over the next river, mountain, etc. to start a new hunter/gatherer community. However eventually all the unoccupied land would be taken up making further expansion impossible unless another means was found, which I think may have been agriculture.

And war.

Again an agricultural surplus is required to sustain a large standing army. I’d guess that most stone-age societies were as devoid of organsied warfare as Australian Aboriginals were.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Not so sure about that, although the Australian Aborigines seemed to handle it very well, or was because Australia is a very large country with many geographical factors
naturally keeping people apart. With other countries the habitat areas are larger and more continuous that meant when the population grew and the land not large enough to support them, they simply moved over the next river, mountain, etc. to start a new hunter/gatherer community. However eventually all the unoccupied land would be taken up making further expansion impossible unless another means was found, which I think may have been agriculture.

And war.

Again an agricultural surplus is required to sustain a large standing army. I’d guess that most stone-age societies were as devoid of organsied warfare as Australian Aboriginals were.

Aboriginals had strict borders and designated meeting places. Trespassers were attacked and often killed.

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

And war.

Again an agricultural surplus is required to sustain a large standing army. I’d guess that most stone-age societies were as devoid of organsied warfare as Australian Aboriginals were.

Aboriginals had strict borders and designated meeting places. Trespassers were attacked and often killed.

I dunno about ‘strict’ boundaries. And any nearby clans were probably relations anyway.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Again an agricultural surplus is required to sustain a large standing army. I’d guess that most stone-age societies were as devoid of organsied warfare as Australian Aboriginals were.

Aboriginals had strict borders and designated meeting places. Trespassers were attacked and often killed.

I dunno about ‘strict’ boundaries. And any nearby clans were probably relations anyway.

https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia

China enforces strict new measures, including anal swab testing!